Cities Turning to Bicycles



Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a vehicle is not undergoing extreme lateral acceleration, there is
>>> plenty of friction available for braking as well as turning. And, as
>>> on freeway exit ramps, I have sense to stay away from ten-tenths
>>> cornering moves.
>>>
>>
>> But that's exactly what you were busting me on earlier - entering a
>> corner at, say, 6/10 and suddenly discovering that I needed 10/10 or
>> more - which can happen.
>
>
> Overestimating a safe cornering speed by 40%? That can happen, I
> suppose, but not to anyone who's even marginally competent.

Not even in a situation like this?

http://www.gribblenation.com/hfotw/exit_50.html

granted, that's a rare and extreme example, but it illustrates my point
very nicely, I think.

>
> I'm continually astounded that you aren't embarrassed by your own posts.
> You routinely make yourself sound like you can barely find the pavement!
>
> You also suggested that I slow down in that
>
>> situation, implying braking...
>
>
> It was meant to imply driving at a slower speed.
>

That's all well and good, but that doesn't address the problem at all.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
Wayne Pein wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <Dn19d.19776$n%[email protected]>,
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> An off-ramp from a freeway that has a stop light at the end of the
>>>>> ramp.
>>>>> One must slow or stop anyway, and the forced slowing with a
>>>>> decreasing radius geometric additionally sends the message that the
>>>>> road about to be entered is not a freeway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not have a constant radius turn of the same radius as your
>>>> proposed decreasing radius ramp at its tightest? What would be the
>>>> disadvantage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Starting with a larger radius is more consistent with the high speed
>>> entering the off ramp. As speed is lost, the turn can be tighter to
>>> ensure just that.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>
>> But you create a situation where driver's can't *see* (in many cases,
>> anyway) the radius where it tightens.
>>
>
> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
>
> Wayne
>

Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
than seemingly "trick" drivers? You know as well as I that 98% of the
signs on a freeway are ********, advisory as well as statutory. In
short, pardon my French, but you are advocating half-assed, ********,
dangerous engineering when the correct solution probably costs no more
in money, time, or materials.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
John David Galt wrote:
> Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction,

LMAO. Are you working your way through the science fiction from
the thrities or something?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> AZGuy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
> >>at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
> >>their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.
> >
> >
> > What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
> > 'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
> > you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
> > and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
> > Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
> > jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
> > 90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
> > you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
> > accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
> > stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
> > lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
> > the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.
>
> Understood. However, in the post that originally got us on this
> sub-topic, the poster was bragging about an old vehicle doing "75+ mph"
> on a rural two lane road.
>
> Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
> speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
> pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
> of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
> such circumstances.
>
> So we'd likely have this situation: the pedestrian saying, after
> waiting a while as cars pass, "OK, based on what I just saw with the
> last 5 cars, if the next car is at least as far as that distant
> billboard, I'll have just enough time to safely cross."
>
> But if the next car is doing 90 instead of 55, there's not time to
> cross. And pedestrians are no more illuminated than deer and dogs and
> tree branches.
>
> So briefly, we have our hypothetical driver exceeding his capabilities
> and those of his vehicle based on certain assumptions. Often the
> assumptions are true, but sometimes they're not.
>
> The benefits go to the driver, and are - let's face it - not worth much.
> They are: getting home to watch the beginning of the Simpsons; and/or
> feeling really cool while pretending to be a race car driver.
>
> The detriments go to everyone else: more risk, less mobility, more
> noise, more taxes for police enforcement, more funding for emergency
> personnel and ER teams who have to scrape Speed Racer out of the ditch
> and put him back together, etc.

What a load of ********.

You mean to say that a pedestrian won't be able to tell that a car doing
90 isn't going significantly faster than one he just saw doing 55? You
want to stick to that story?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Overestimating a safe cornering speed by 40%? That can happen, I
>>> suppose, but not to anyone who's even marginally competent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not even in a situation like this?
>>
>> http://www.gribblenation.com/hfotw/exit_50.html
>
>
> Not even in a situation like that.
>

You are either being deliberately disingenuous, or else you've never
driven an automobile. There is *no way* to see the decreasing radius
until one is already into the shallower curve.

Therefore, into the killfile with you, since you apparently are immune
to logic.

*plonk*

My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
know when to quit.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> Overestimating a safe cornering speed by 40%? That can happen, I
>> suppose, but not to anyone who's even marginally competent.
>
>
> Not even in a situation like this?
>
> http://www.gribblenation.com/hfotw/exit_50.html

Not even in a situation like that.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
>>speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
>>pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
>>of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
>>such circumstances.
>>
>>So we'd likely have this situation: the pedestrian saying, after
>>waiting a while as cars pass, "OK, based on what I just saw with the
>>last 5 cars, if the next car is at least as far as that distant
>>billboard, I'll have just enough time to safely cross."
>>
>>But if the next car is doing 90 instead of 55, there's not time to
>>cross. And pedestrians are no more illuminated than deer and dogs and
>>tree branches. ...
>
> What a load of ********.
>
> You mean to say that a pedestrian won't be able to tell that a car doing
> 90 isn't going significantly faster than one he just saw doing 55? You
> want to stick to that story?

Apparently, it pains you to think that anyone might ever be injured
because someone drives 90 mph at night. But to think otherwise seems
fantastically unrealistic.

What situation are you envisioning? One where the 90 mph car is on a
perfectly straight road? Where the pedestrian can see its approach for
a nice long time, to carefully judge its speed? Where the pedestrian is
an athletic guy with a good sprint? Can you not understand that your
ideal situation is seldom real?

I've walked across many highways, day and night. Despite your lack of
imagination, there are _many_ situations when oncoming cars are visible
for only a short distance, and where pedestrians have to count on
drivers being reasonable. In these situations, pedestrians have to say
"OK, if there are no cars visible, there's just enough time to cross."
Furthermore, there are many pedestrians who are not nimble, but must
still cross the road. These folks have less margin for error - and I'm
speaking of _your_ error in driving too fast.

People have a right to mobility, to walk about in the world, even if it
means some motorhead will have to shelve his fantasies and drive
responsibly.

The fact that this needs explained is just more evidence that society
_can't_ rely on drivers to choose their own speeds.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> than seemingly "trick" drivers?

Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.

Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.

The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.

I think you need to slow down. Always.


Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
just didn't look like a trick to me!

Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
driving skills? ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> > than seemingly "trick" drivers?
>
> Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.
>
> Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
> that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.

Except that such warning signs are almost always incorrectly signed by a
factor of two...


>
> The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
> you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
> on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.
>
> I think you need to slow down. Always.
>
>
> Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
> last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
> terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
> sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> just didn't look like a trick to me!

Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
should have to make that one so very large...


>
> Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
> roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
> decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
> driving skills? ;-)

Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
you would need to round certain bends...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.

.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.

.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.

.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.

.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
>>last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
>>terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
>>just didn't look like a trick to me!
>
>
> Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> should have to make that one so very large...

From the description on the website Nate mentioned, it's not clear that
the problem is inaccurate labeling of the turn. It sounds like the turn
is at the bottom of a long descent. IOW, it sounds like certain drivers
are letting their cars speed up on that descent, and are unwilling (or
too inattentive) to hit the brakes.

I suppose we could dumb down _all_ the highway system so road zombies
_never_ have to wake up. But it does get a bit expensive, especially in
places like the Appalachians and their foothills, where this interchange
sits.

>
>
>
>>Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
>>roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
>>decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
>>driving skills? ;-)
>
>
> Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
> conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
> warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
> you would need to round certain bends...

"Inappropriate" as in too high? Never. "Inappropriate" as in too low?
Perhaps, if we go by the standard that every turn should always be
taken near its maximum. That's not my standard.

But in any case: Somehow, somehow, I survived! Again, maybe this was a
result of my world-beating driving skills? ;-)



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> > > Wayne Pein wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
> > >>
> > >> Wayne
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> > > than seemingly "trick" drivers?
> >
> > Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.
> >
> > Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
> > that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.
>
> Except that such warning signs are almost always incorrectly signed by a
> factor of two...
>
>
> >
> > The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
> > you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
> > on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.
> >
> > I think you need to slow down. Always.
> >
> >
> > Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
> > last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
> > terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
> > sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> > just didn't look like a trick to me!
>
> Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> should have to make that one so very large...

I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
see them.

>
> >
> > Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
> > roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
> > decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
> > driving skills? ;-)
>
> Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
> conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
> warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
> you would need to round certain bends...

Yeah, I've just accepted the fact that Frank is immune to reason.
There's a difference between a mountain road and an Interstate
highway, but he refuses to acknowledge that.

nate
 
Nate Nagel wrote:

> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>... I did get a look at the warning
>>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
>>>just didn't look like a trick to me!
>>
>>Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
>>improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
>>should have to make that one so very large...
>
>
> I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
> means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
> tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
> similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
> or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
> anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
> bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
> see them.

This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.

And I imagine it's partly because accidents happen when drivers somehow
miss the fact that traffic is actually backed up and stopped at the toll
booths.

Now you may wonder, how on earth could someone drive along and not see a
line of cars, or a tool booth, sitting stationary in the road ahead of
them?

But then, we wonder how someone could misjudge a 25 mph ramp to the
point they have to do a "controlled four wheel drift" [sic] to make it
through!

Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>... I did get a look at the warning
> >>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> >>>just didn't look like a trick to me!
> >>
> >>Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> >>improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> >>should have to make that one so very large...
> >
> >
> > I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
> > means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
> > tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
> > similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
> > or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
> > anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
> > bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
> > see them.
>
> This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
> booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
> drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.
>
> And I imagine it's partly because accidents happen when drivers somehow
> miss the fact that traffic is actually backed up and stopped at the toll
> booths.
>
> Now you may wonder, how on earth could someone drive along and not see a
> line of cars, or a tool booth, sitting stationary in the road ahead of
> them?
>
> But then, we wonder how someone could misjudge a 25 mph ramp to the
> point they have to do a "controlled four wheel drift" [sic] to make it
> through!

Because the portion that required 25 mph was out of plain view and
advisory limits are so habitually wrong by a factor of two that there's
no way any reasonable person would trust them.

>
> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
"Mike DeMicco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No,
>
> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
> fossil fuels, and
>
> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the CO2
from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow. It is
claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere.

If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several options being
developed that also have the potential to replace fossil fuel.

One estimate is that when we create a practical fusion system, there is
enough fuel on earth to last about twice the time until the Earth is burned
up in the death process of the sun.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]>
wrote:

snip
>
> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.

Or maybe just hang up!

Almost bought it yesterday because of some inatentive drivers yaking on their
cell phones.

I was as far to the right in a bike lane as you can get.

HAND

Yo! Frank! You on sabatical this semester???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back